Skip to main content

tv   Washington Journal Caitlin Emma  CSPAN  February 12, 2020 6:49pm-7:23pm EST

6:49 pm
differs from all other political coverage for one simple reason. it's c-span. we brought you brought you your unfiltered view of government every day since 1979 and now we're bringing you an unfiltered view of the people seeking to share that this november. in other words, your future. this election season, go deep, direct and unfiltered. see the biggest picture for yourself and make up your own mind. with c-span's campaign 2020, brought to you as a public service of your television provider. is budget andlin emma appropriations reporter for politico, joining us this morning to talk about what the administration has proposed for fiscal year 2021, which begins october 1. in reporting we have seen from you, "trump rolls out conservative dream budget."
6:50 pm
what did you mean by that? guest: the budget that the president has proposed for fiscal year 20 anyone would deeply cut federal agencies almost across the board. only a few federal agencies would really see increases. huge cuts to nondefense spending while at the same time providing the pentagon with a small boost. you can really get a sense of the president's priorities in the budget like this. for example, today i had a story about the massive cuts in his proposal to foreign aid, once again. it is now a new context in light of the ukraine impeachment scandal, but you really get a sense of his priorities and what they see as government waste. host: your piece points out that this budget agreement, this budget proposal is all under the agreement that was reached between the president and congress last year, setting budget caps for what they can do this year. was anright, so there
6:51 pm
agreement last summer, a two-year budget agreement for fiscal year 2020 and fiscal year 2021, so we have funding backed for fiscal 2021, but the ,resident was a budget democrats are saying sort of violates that agreement and that he is proposing to spend at the level that they had agreed for the military, but he is seeking a very big cut to nondefense spending. obviously that will not be palatable to democrats. host: remind us of the process. what happens next? guest: this really kicks off the appropriations process. yesterday we sort of already got the sense that the fact that the house in the senate are likely not going to pass a budget resolution in the coming months, because they have these fiscal 2021 spending caps, so that is kind of saying that they are in essence tossing out the president's budget proposal already. they are like "we have this agreement, we are moving forward, great." in the next few months, we will
6:52 pm
see that committees holding hearings, starting markups, calling cabinet secretary's to but it is the presidential election year, and most folks do not believe that spending bills will be finished before then. host: two of those initial hearings coming up today. we will tell you about that in a moment. our guest is caitlin emma. she is with politico. she covers budget and appropriations issues. the lines, (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats, and independents, (202) 748-8002 . just some of the figures from your reporting on the budget in the savings, uh, that the administration says they will get, 4.4 trillion dollars in savings and 10 years, in to reduce the deficit cuts iniod, half of the
6:53 pm
mandatory programs. where's the rest of it? guest: it is to cut nondefense discretionary spending programs, so like i was saying, the huge cuts that he is proposing to most federal agencies, for instance am about half of that $4.4 trillion in savings. a lot of folks, even republicans, say that it's really not the best way to go about shrinking the debt and the deficit in the long run. it really does not do much, because mandatory spending makes up the vast majority of the budget. pleased republicans are with the fact that he is pushing savings to mandatory reforms, and they would like to have a discussion about that, but obviously in an election year, it is not the right time to talk about that. host: there are a lot of charts and graphs about who is gaining the most in terms of cuts and boosts to the budget. just in your reporting, who are the biggest losers in this, in terms of departments? guest: most federal agencies
6:54 pm
under this proposal would see a pretty big cut, and it is a pretty unrealistic cut. you know, republicans in congress know that, but he is proposing, like, a 26% cut to the epa, 837% cut to the e commerce department after the 2020 census. 8% cuts, 9% cuts, big chunks to take out of the federal budget, however, there are a few agencies that would see increases, like the department of veterans affairs and the department of homeland security. the nuclear services administration, basically you can get a sense of where the president's priorities are in the agencies that he decided to prop up just a little bit. host: is there any political sense -- this is an election year, obviously -- is there a political overtones of this budget all? guest: i think certainly it is similar to previous budgets that he has proposed. again, you kind of get a sense
6:55 pm
of what they see as a critical investment and what they see as kind of a waste of money. for example, foreign aid, the president has been very critical of providing foreign aid to countries for the last few years. you know, we saw the freezing of the ukraine funds over the summer, was led to the impeachment inquiry. but we see it as something that they want to rein in. host: does that mean the state department budget has decreased? guest: right, they propose cut to the state department and usaid under the proposal would be 21%, which is one of the bigger cuts he is proposing. host: one of the bigger sticking points it seems in the annual appropriation is the border wall, the funding for the border wall. what is the proposal for 2021? what happened last year, and what is the proposal for this year? guest: we are kind of seeing an interesting proposal with the
6:56 pm
border wall this time around. the president is only seeking $2 billion for wall construction, and when you talk to the white house budget office, they are kind of saying, you know, we successful in moving around federal funds, which have drawn all kinds of congressional ire over the last year. they say that they have the money that they need to build the wall, essentially, and they want to pivot to immigration enforcement, so the president's budget is also seeking increases for i.c.e., border protection, but $2 billion is a very small the $8.6 billion he was seeking last year and ultimately of course did not get. congress ended up providing him with about $1.4 billion. i really think even though a 2 billion-dollar increases not very much, i think democrats will be pretty lo toa give him any kind of increase, especially in an election season. they have done this through
6:57 pm
is kind ofng, which a word for moving money around, essentially taking money from military construction accounts, funneling that toward border wall construction. it has been reported a few weeks ago that they are looking at moving another $7 billion or so toward border wall construction. so they are kind of saying, "thank you, congress, we have enough money, you know, we are going to start getting toward immigration enforcement." he decides to not keep reshuffling funds this year and getting congress mad about that, that kind of remains to be seen. i think it is probably likely. host: this can be a kind of in the weeds question, but if they do not spend all the money that was allocated for fiscal year 2020, do they get to carry that over into the next year? guest: they are already getting criticism for reportedly looking at moving another $7
6:58 pm
billion when they did not spend the whole amount that they tapped last year through the emergency declaration, so that has become sort of this issue where they are continually seeking to move around money, but at the same time, you know, you still have $4 billion or whatever it is over here that you have not spent, depriving military construction accounts of this money. this. is affecting military families. so definitely there is a tense interplay between congress and the white house. host: the headlines in one of your political pieces, "trumpe s , food stamps." he can have an effect on medicaid numbers, but in terms of the so-called entitlements, the mandatory spending, the president was a budget has no effect on that.
6:59 pm
congress -- those are set in law, correct? guest: right, and the $4.4 trillion in savings that he was speaking that you mentioned earlier, $2 trillion of that, sorry, would be basically through reforms, and entitlement reforms overhauling the entitlement safety net. we have seen this administration proposed regulatory efforts to stamp benefits, to implement work requirements, to tighten up social security disability eligibility requirements. this is how they see themselves achieving savings through entitlements and mandatory spending. are veryese programs unpalatable to democrats who see it as basically cutting poor people out of critical benefits that they need and also, you know, blaming them for essentially be in low income at the same time. so not going anywhere.
7:00 pm
[laughs] host:host: we have plenty of calls waiting for caitlin emma. this is james. go ahead. caller: how are you doing, c-span? host: fine. thanks. go ahead. [indiscernible] 93% of them are paying 0% in taxes. i got that from my sources. google.book, not it is really disgusting. thank you. in newark, new jersey.
7:01 pm
we will go to georgia next in lansdale, pennsylvania, for public in line. hi there. caller: hello. host: you are on the air, go ahead. caller: hi, caitlin. i want to know the difference between socialism and communism peered i do not understand. host: that is a little off topic. we are talking the 2021 fiscal budget. this is david. go ahead. caller: so i pay taxes, but in 2016, i unregistered for the vote, because i want an option, i want something else other than a representative system that the current regime of representatives to delegate my properties, my security, my family, everybody for capital investment benefit of residence, like these colleges that bulldozed to make access into so they caneas,
7:02 pm
establish themselves and make while weof dollars, should have been left alone to have our home. i'm tired of being -- my freedoms being relegated to capital investment. host: let's take that call into taxes. does the president's proposal say anything about tax reform? guest: the president's proposal is once again based on sort of very optimistic economic projections. he is basically projecting at least 3% economic growth over a decade. most economists say that that is likely not the case, but part of his proposal is also predicated on the fact that the republican tax overhaul in 2017 will be renewed by 2026. so that is an optimistic scenario. we do not know what the makeup of congress will be. again, you have to take the
7:03 pm
president's budget with a big grain of salt. a something a lot of positive things -- assuming a lot of positive things will happen based on a long-term and limitation of the president's policies. host: the president hinted at that. he talked on it on several occasions. guest: he definitely hinted on a middle-class tax package, but this proposal is pretty light on details when it comes to that proposal. we kind of do not know what is going on with that. host: we go to brian next on our republican line in ohio. brian, go ahead. caller: good morning. i recently saw a press conference by the democrats mentioning that the president in his budget wants to take care of medicare. he wants to take money out of medicare. is that true? guest: so that is a really good question. there has been a little bit of discussion between the term "cut" and "reform," so a lot of news outlets since the budget
7:04 pm
was posted on monday have said president trump want to cut xyz out of medicare/medicaid. the white house would contend that they are achieving these savings through "reform," but those reforms in effect aim to shrink the social safety net, so fewer people would be receiving food stamps, fewer people would be covered by medicaid, medicare, and that is essentially how they are looking to achieve long-term savings. host: you touched on this in terms of the growth projections the administration is proposing. the concord coalition's robert this, spending reform that flies in the face of recent experience, the president's budget would still be in deficit over the next 10 years, so what does their forecast a, what does the administration's forecast a about what we will be -- when we will be out of deficit?
7:05 pm
guest: right. this is the difference between what the government spends and the revenue that they take in. the idea is sort of this conservative, i cannot think of a good word for it, conservative ideal, and the president's first budget proposed to do that over the course of a decade. now we are looking at a less aggressive timeline that the administration is proposing. they say that they are aiming to close the deficit within 15 years. some conservatives are saying, speakow, ok, but actions louder than words. we will really see whether or not the rubber hits the road with this proposal, whether congress actually does anything. this is making a lot of news. we are projected to hit $1 trillion this year, that continues to drive up the federal debt. while it is not really triggering an immediate crisis at the moment, you know, the congressional budget office
7:06 pm
warns that in the long term, the deficit is going to hit a tipping point, and we do not know what it is. investors will lose confidence in the you estimate it will be harder to pay back funds. host: it is david in texas on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. one of the things you mentioned it was about the epa and the cut command you called it unrealistic. i do not know whether it is or whether it isn't, but one thing i know is the epa has exploded as far as what they do, and i know the trump administration did get an executive order that theon the ruling obama administration had regarding ruling on waters. we are literally practically pawns on farms that could be controlled. i guess it was a temporary -- it was just crazy, the stuff that they had. if i could equate, they have bills -- let me move over to obamacare for a moment, i think it was over 2600 pages. the last, i heard was that the bureaucrats, they give them a
7:07 pm
shell of a thing to write regulations for coming the last i heard, it was 100,000 pages, and was years ago. there's no telling how many pages they ended up with. 900 classification for illnesses from an insurance standpoint, they took it up to 9000. this is a bureaucratic explosion. the commerce clause from years ago, when they literally ruled that, during the depression, the supreme court ruled that a farmer was not allowed to grow wheat in his yard to feed his family when he could not afford to buy food, and the commerce clause and all of the things have been giving rise to give the centralized government control over so many things that used to be controlled by with thed i think trumpet administration is trying to do is move back into a federal = scenario, not have things controlled at the federal level, why move it to
7:08 pm
the administration and get a cup back to them when it is something that is being run at the state level anyway? host: ok, we will get a response. guest: i think you bring up a great point and that the administration, in crafting this budget proposal that was released last week and the last three fundamentally sees the government as being too large. part of that is the epa. you know, part of that is the administration's vision and what the epa does and whether or not it is necessary and whether or not the agency needs to be that big. when the president came on and 2016, there was a lot of talk about are they going to eliminate -- are they going to propose eliminating federal agencies, is he going to get rid of the department of education, for example? i think you are seeing in these very dramatic cuts what they see as the appropriate size of government, and that is of course smaller. host: does the budget say anything about pay increases for the military for federal
7:09 pm
employees? guest: i do believe it proposed a small increase for federal employees, 1%, perhaps, but don't quote me on that. so that is kind of in line with what we have seen over the last few years. host: our president and the state of the union speech brought up social security. here is some of what he said. [video clip] pres. trump: the most affordable, innovative, and high-quality health care system on earth. before he took office, health insurance premiums had more than doubled in just five years. i moved quickly to provide affordable alternatives, a new plan up to 60% less expensive. and better. [applause] pres. trump: i have also made an ironclad pledge to american families.
7:10 pm
we will always protect patients with pre-existing conditions. [cheers & applause] pres. trump: and we will always protect your medicare, and we will always protect your social security. always. [cheers & applause] host: president trump at the state of the union. caitlin emma, and they 2021 proposal, though, he is fundingg a 9% cut in for the department of health and human services. guest: right. and that is kind of coming under some kootenay -- amino, all of underts are coming scrutiny, particularly at a time when we see this coronavirus outbreak globally. he is also proposing to cut the budget,dget, the nih's and i spoke to republican tom
7:11 pm
cole yesterday. he is a senior appropriator, the ranking member of the house of nations, labor hhs education subcommittee, and he is saying these are not the right programs to cut. these programs save lives, help research, save lives. the cdc is working to combat this outbreak, you know, across the globe, so this is not a strategic or targeted way to cut spending. host: we will go back to calls. we will hear from beverly, democrats line, huron, ohio. caller: hello. host: hi there. caller: thank you for taking my call. can you hear me? host: yes we can. go ahead. caller: i think trump is the worst president we have had. he is worse than nixon. amy klobuchar is my first choice, and pete buttigieg is my second choice. mike bloomberg is my third choice. i am very upset with our president, because he wants to make massive cuts to foreign aid
7:12 pm
, fema, medicaid, libraries, pbs, and he puts children in cages and separates families and is polluting our national parks, allowing drilling for oil. he is stealing from social forcing, and he is asylum-seekers to live in mexico instead of -- host: ok, loss there, beverly. caitlin emma, any response? guest: certainly i think your point of view is reflected by many democrats in congress. budget the president's proposal really as untenable some of the cuts you were talking about, cuts to the department of education, cuts to foreign aid come are very dramatic, democrats agree that they would not allow that to happen, and they are not
7:13 pm
effective of their ideals. host: our text line is (202) 748-8003. mary says, "what is the exact reduction of funds to the epa?" your article says they will see a nearly 20% -- 20 7% reduction. the army corps of engineers will see a nearly 20% reduction, even though the rest of the military is getting a boost. guest: certainly. i apologize, i have not memorized every agency -- host: it is all right. we have it here for you. guest: yes, it is a huge cut to the army corps of engineers. the army corps of engineers is an interesting pot to talk about for the moment, because just over the last few weeks, they are talking about bringing back earmarks or a revamped version of your max, i should say. they want to do some kind of reform system where we are not, you know, spending all this money on thousands and thousands
7:14 pm
of projects for more targeted investments, and i think a lot of those projects come out of the army corps of engineers. administration sees this as something the federal government should not be invested in. host: before you go come i want to remind our viewers they will hear from the administration twice today coming to hearings, first one up today at 10:00, the office of management and budget, to know what a.m. eastern over c-span3, also on c-span.org. secretaryll be the steven mnuchin, also on c-span3. in tallahassee, florida, independent line. bill, go ahead. caller: yes, i just had a question regarding the budget. we still have a budget increase, am i correct? guest: yes, it would be an
7:15 pm
increase over previous years' budgets, but that is because congress and the white house negotiated funding levels for this coming fiscal year, fiscal year 2021, that begins on october 1, and they will be slightly higher than what they were for the current fiscal year , for both military and nonmilitary spending. caller: ok, so my basic question is -- it is kind of a comment as that both, i think parties are not serving the united states of america's citizens. they are not serving us with this budget. what they do is take this money, and they give it to these big eightations, and they pay of the $10 that they get, they give it to the corporations, and $2 of the dollars that
7:16 pm
they get, and they look at the rest of us, and they divide us. they have us fighting over 20% of the budget. until we get people in office that are going to serve us, including the guy that is sitting in the oval office right now and some of the people that are in congress, and some of the people that are in the senate, that are going to serve the united states of america, the citizens, we have an oligarchy. host: bill, we will let you go there. caitlin emma, any final [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> there is a lot of fighting but it is largely concentrated on a very small part of the federal budget and that's just discretionary funding. so essentially, there's skyrocketing debt. there's a widening deficit. you know, i think we saw even senate majority leader mitch mcconnell saying both parties
7:17 pm
are to blame and any long-term fiscal concerns that we're going to have, both parties feel pressure. republicans feel pressured to increase defense spending and democrats feel pressured to increase non-defense spending. so whether or not there's really an effort to rein in the debt, rein in the deficit kind of get the appropriations process back on track kind of remains to be seen. host: and a decade or so on capitol hill, there was effort, there was some bipartisan efforts to make long-term reforms like social security and medical care, so-called entitlements. guest: and there's appetite to talk about that at some point. we're also entering a new phase where this recent budget deal that was struck over the summer takes us through the end of the budget control act. host: the set caps. guest: so that, you know, after fiscal 2021, it's like what are e going to do now?
7:18 pm
it depends on the makeup of congress and who's president and what the appetite is for. >> we [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2020] >> earlier today british prime minister boris johnson -- news and policy issues that impact you. coming up thursday morning, problem solvers caucus co-chairs reid and josh gottheimer discuss bipartisan legislative priorities for congress. also, arkansas republican congressman bruce westerman talks about his trillion tree initiative to help address climate change. watch c-span's "washington journal" live at 7:00 eastern thursday morning. and be sure to watch "washington journal" next week for a museum week. we'll explore george washington's mount vernon, the national museum of the marine corps, the smithsonian national museum of american history, smithsonian national museum of the american indian, and the smithsonian national museum of african-american history and
7:19 pm
culture. >> article two is adopted. >> do you solemnly swear that in all things pertaining to the trial of the impeachment of donald john trump, president of the united states, now pending -- >> you will do impartial justice according to the constitution and laws, so help you god? the senate will convene as a court of impeachment. >> what we have seen over the last couple of days is a dissent into constitutional madness. >> again, we think the basis upon which this has moved forward is irregular, to say the least. >> donald john trump, president of the united states, is not guilty as charged in the second article of impeachment. >> for the third time in u.s. history, a president has been impeached and acquitted. from the house hearings, to the senate trial, c-span has provided live comprehensive coverage of the impeachment of
7:20 pm
president trump. you can find all of our video and related resources at c-span.org/impeachment. c-span, your place for unfiltered coverage of ongress. >> they say this is the panhandle of texas is the only place you can watch your dog run away for two weeks. >> the majority of the towns, cities in the panhandle wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the coming of the railroad. >> the c-span cities tour is on the road splorg the american story. this weekend we travel to amarillo, texas.
7:21 pm
>> amarillo is in the center of the texas panhandle. we kind of affectionately call ourselves the capital city of the texas panhandle. i really think our superpower here in the city of amarillo is that we think regionally. >> with the help of our sudden link cable partners, we'll learn about the history and literary life of the city and the surrounding area, as we talk with local authors and visit historic sites. >> the park today is a lot like it has been for thousands of years. all of a sudden you come across this huge drop into the earth. it's the second largest canyon in the united states after the grand. >> she was here twice between 1912 and 1914. he was in in amarillo teaching for -- she was in amarillo teaching for the public school system and then in 1916 to 1918 she came back and got a faculty position here at west texas state. sometimes artists don't write so we don't know what they thought and said. she wrote prolifically. this book can teach us so much more about this artist.
7:22 pm
struggling with just the things you can imagine yourself struggling with. she's so relatable. so she's not this grumpy anti-war figure. >> join us this saturday at 5:30 p.m. on c-span2's book tv and then sunday at 2:00 p.m. on c-span3's american history tv. as the c-span cities tour takes ou to amarillo, texas. >> earlier today british prime minister boris johnson fielded domestic and important foil -- foreign policy questions from labor party leader jeremy corbin and other members in the house of commons. members asked the prime minister about a ban against trophy hunting, knife crime prevention, and government services for people impacted by recent floods. this is half an hour.

0 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on